Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.
Ravindra Mahabaleshwara Naik – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Co-Operation and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 107866 of 2024 (CS-EL/M) C/W Writ Petition No. 107667 of 2024
Decided On : 24-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's order and procedural clarity regarding election results (Para 1) |
| 2. eligibility and voting rights of petitioners (Para 2) |
| 3. legal basis for contesting votes despite eligibility disputes (Para 3) |
| 4. agreements from respondents about petitioners' votes (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT :
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.)
Heard learned counsel Sri Vishwanath Bhat, for the petitioners, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2, as well as learned counsel Sri A.P.Hegde, for respondent No.6.
2. It is the grievance of petitioners that as per voters list produced despite being the members, their names are not reflected in the list. It is contended that list so produced is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law hence, they sought for grant of permission to cast their votes and contest in the elections. By virtue of the interim order, this Court permitted them to contest and cast their votes in the election so conducted to the respondent-society. In view of petitioners already having contested and cast their votes, only question that needs to be considered is whether votes so cast and contest so made by the petitioners requires to be taken into consideration and results of election be declared.
3. Learned AGA relies upon a Judgment of coordinate bench of this Court in WP.No.1807/2024 to contend that even if petitioners who are not eligible and there is violation of provision of Rules 13-D(2-A) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 that merely will not disqualify the petitioners from contesting and cast votes to the society election.
4. Learned counsel for respondent/society submits that in view of already seven months having being passed after the election is conducted no out come has come up. He has no objection for votes of the petitioners being taken into consideration and result be declared and if petitioners have any grievance, they are at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. In view of the same and the Judgment relied on by learned counsel for petitioners, I pass the following :
ORDER
(i) Petitions are disposed of.
(ii) Respondent No.5/Returning Officer shall announce/declare the result of election held to the Board of management of respondent No.6-Socieity on 27.12.2024 by including the votes cast by the petitioners in both these cases.
(iii) It is made clear that if there is any dispute of any of persons aggrieved by the result so announced, they are at liberty to challenge the same in the manner known to law under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act or otherwise.
(iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to merits HC-KAR of the matter or eligibility or ineligibility of the petitioners.
(v) All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Participation in elections by individuals deemed ineligible does not invalidate election results if due process is followed, allowing courts to permit such participation.
Procedural non-compliance in election eligibility does not cure disqualification; eligibility disputes must be resolved under the relevant provisions of the Act.
The court affirmed the right to vote in co-operative society elections despite non-compliance with eligibility rules, allowing votes to be counted while keeping eligibility disputes open for future r....
Compliance with election procedures under statutory rules is essential, and eligibility disputes must be resolved independently of interim orders.
The court held that non-attendance at meetings due to COVID-19 restrictions should not disqualify members from voting, affirming that disputes about eligibility typically fall under statutory provisi....
The court ruled that procedural non-compliance does not automatically validate disqualified votes, and eligibility must be determined in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions.
Eligibility disputes in cooperative elections should be resolved post-election under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, not through immediate judicial intervention.
The court affirmed that election disputes under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act must be addressed according to its prescribed procedures post-result announcement.
Eligibility disputes in cooperative society elections must be addressed under statutory frameworks, following established precedent for interim voting rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
